2016 (11) TMI 485

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gaged in providing repair and maintenance services to Delhi Jal Board under agreement entered into between two of them. The dispute in the present appeal relates to applicability of notification No. 12/03-ST dated 20.6.03 which exempts the value of all taxable services as is equal to the value of goods and materials sold by the service provider to the recipient of service, subject to the condition that there is a documentary proof specifying indicating the value of goods and material. The respondent have given a break up of the total consideration received by them from M/s. Delhi Jal Board showing the value of goods as 80% and value of service as 20%. They have also produced invoices showing 80% goods actually sold by them and have discharg....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ication simply says that the abatement equivalent to value of goods and materials soled by the provider to the recipient of service shall be available subject to the condition that there is a documentary proof specifically indicating value of the said goods and materials. Obviously, the documentary proof implies that the basis should be a reasonable basis which could indicate the value of the materials and goods sold. In the current case, I find that the invoice that has been relied upon by the Show cause notice i.e. in RUD 8, the invoice no.1/2007-08 dated 12.4.2007 has been referred to. This particular invoice on perusal reveals that it has complete item-wise details mentioned in the same and some of these items pertain to supply of goods....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntract is always more than 80% . The working of the said ratio in respect of financial year 2006-2007 and 2007-2008, has been reproduced in said submissions. On perusal of the same, it is evidence that the said ratio of material in fact is worked out at 86.35%. Thus, the party has mentioned that the ratio taken by the assessee while discharging service tax liability is reasonable. " Accordingly, he dropped the proceedings initiated against the respondent. 4. As against the above order of Joint Commissioner, Revenue filed the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who also rejected the same. Hence, the present appeal by the Revenue. 5. After giving careful consideration to the facts as also legal position, we note that the appellants were ....